MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed the C.C.Case No. 6/2023 U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-
Hon’ble Commission may direct the Ops to settled insurance claim against two(2) scheme as PMJJBY & PMSBY Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh each) total Rs. 4,00,000/-(Four Lakh) along with interest 12% to the Complainant and Rs. 50,000/- towards the compensation to the Petitioner for financial loss, mental agony.
Heard the Ld. Counsel from both the parties in length. Perused the documents available on record and also gone through the complaint petition & so also perused the written version filed by the Ops.
Notice to the Ops was issue and it was revealed that SBI Life Insurance (Op No.2 ) had taken/received premium of Rs. 172/- for PMJJBY vide Policy No. 76001000135 but not settled as they found the claim to be suspicious as stated in Para-6 & 7 of brief fact of written statement and in Para-1 of para-wise comment and also objected regarding territorial Jurisdiction as the Ops are resident of Bhubaneswar and contesting the case.
Op No.3 who had received premium of Rs. 12/- towards PMSBY has settled the claim and Complainant has received the claim amount.
We have gone through the FIR, Death Certificate, Legal heir Certificate and found that the delay in settling the claim by Op No.2 on frivolous ground of date of death, father as nominee when death certificate of father is available on the face of record is not justified particularly when the policy was obtained on 11.12.2018 and 2 date of death i.e, 21.01.2018 & 21.01.2019 available before them clearly speaks non application of mind when FIR, death certificate, legal heir certificate available on the face of record and where 21.01.2018 is mentioned has also not been cited by Op No.2 which goes to show that the Op No.2 has not applied his mind in settling the dispute.The Op No.3 has appeared and paid the insurance amount to Complainant finding the claim to be genuine. So, we are not directing Op No.3 and OpNo.1 is Bank who has received the premium and paid to Op No.2 & 3 and they are not concerned, so Op No.1 is also not liable to pay anything as there is no deficiency on the part of Op No.1.
Now the question arises whether the Op No.2 is justified in delaying the matter and contesting the case to harsh widow wife, minor children and widow mother of the deceased life assured.
The answer is certainly No. So the Op No.2 is liable to pay the insured amount and compensation.
The objection regarding jurisdiction is not sustainable in view of clear provision of Sec-34(2) (a) to (d) of C.P.Act, 2019, which reads as under-
“ A complaint shall be instituted in a Dist. Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
- the Op or each the Ops, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works fo gain; or
- any of the Ops, where are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the Dist. Commission is given; or
- the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises: or
- the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
So this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.
The Complainant is wife & mother of two (2) minor children as such she is entitled for 3 shares and mother of deceased insurer is not a party before us and we cannot close our eyes to the right of widow mother who is unrepresented so we have to do equitable justice to the widow mother and should settle the dispute without insisting to impaled mother and cause delay in settling the dispute.
We therefore direct the Op No.2 to settle the claim and pay interest @8% per annum form the date of death to till date of payment and we also impose cost of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand) towards mental agony and cost of litigation to be paid to the Complainant only. Out of the insured amount with interest 50% to be paid to widow mother of deceased insurer as complainant has already received Rs. 2 Lakhs from Op No.3 and Complainant is entitled for ¾ share as she has 2 minor daughters. The Op No.2 shall settle the claim within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Op No.2 shall pay cost of Rs. 100/- per day after 45 days which shall be paid to Complainant only.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the C.C.Case No. 6/2023 is allowed and accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 20th day of February,2024.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
